Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a look
at what that would involve.
thx for your help,
ste
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sgar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a
>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>> intialization
>> e.g.
>>
>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>
>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block
>> of
>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
>> executed
>>
>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>> Map builders =
>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
>> if (builders != null) {
>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for
>> the
>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>> routes
>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this?
>> Was
>> it considered harmful?
> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
>
> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
> then they would both
> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>
> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure
> out
> how the routes are kick started.
>
> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
> to hint that.
>
>
>>
>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds
>> in
>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism,
>> for
>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>> same
>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is
>> much
>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>
> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
> so you can
> specify includes/excludes as well.
>
>>
>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Stephen.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23987836.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
